Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stone of Tears

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep. Articles for deletion is not clean-up, and since the nominator suggests the material should be merged, the nomination is not seeking deletion. Relevant discussion on the nominator's talk page also leads me to believe speedy keep applies, [1], [2]. Also as there are no deletion arguments made beyond the nominator's, I am invoking ignore all rules. In this instance the encyclopedia is not best served by the deletion of the articles, but rather by the improving of them. Also note the specific passage at WP:NOT reads A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. I would suggest these ancilliary articles form part of a larger topic, and that this matter is better discussed at the article talk page for the time being. I would also suggest that where editors identify potential problems, they first look to fix the problems rather than seek deletion. Since the issue's which led to this nomination can be addressed by adding real world context, deletion is not the appropriate solution to the problem. Hiding Talk 10:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stone of Tears

This page violates WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven - the page contains nothing more than a plot summary, which is specifically prohibited. It fails to make any establishment of historical significance, any impact, real-world context or analysis. Furthermore, I fail to see any potential for development here that could not go into the Sword of Truth series page, or Terry Goodkind's personal page. I therefore nominate this page for deletion.

For the same reason, I am also nominating the following books from the same series:

MPoint 05:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Despite lacking sources it is clear the plot over views are to big to fit on the series page because of the number of books. Nomination should be nominating all of the books not just this one.--155.144.251.120 05:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, I'll add the rest to the nomination. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MPoint (talk • contribs) 05:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Can definitely be improved on. Several of these books have been on best-seller lists, and I fail to see how historical significance or real-world context is a criteria for notability. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not nominating the series on a lack of notability; I am nominating them for violating WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven. To put it in plain english, the pages are plot summaries, which are prohibited.MPoint
Keep Book is clearly notable as part of a best-selling series. If the content bothers you, tag it for clean-up or merge. FrozenPurpleCube 05:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As above, the problem isn't notability; it is that the pages are of an inherently unencyclopedic nature. Anything of value can safely be put on the series page - the only content the individual book pages add is a series of plot summaries, which are forbidden by WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MPoint (talk • contribs) 05:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - And that is not a deletion problem, that's a clean-up problem. The problem here is the content needs improvement, not the subject. Tag it for clean-up, take it to the talk pages. Deletion? That's just the wrong response. It's neither necessary or desirable. You've posted this response several times, but you haven't yet said much about cleaning up the pages. Why not add the appropriate clean-up tags instead of deleting? FrozenPurpleCube 06:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - BTW, you've added the other pages, but even if I accepted your argument as grounds for deletion, it seems to me that you didn't look at the pages themselves before adding them. Wizard's First Rule though not what I would consider a high-quality article is slightly more than a plot summary. Again, I would suggest cleanup not deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 06:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - But, as stated and bolded below, it must be part of a larger topic. As it stands, the overwhelming portion of the article is summary; the focus must be on the surrounding material, either by shrinking the summary to uselessness or increasing the size of the other segments. What, though, are we to include in the article? Sales figures, awards, the wizards rules list and such? All of those will easily fit on the serie's main page and the author's page, leaving nothing but the summaries for the book pages, which would be a violation of policy. Thus, the need for individual book pages is eliminated. Thus, my recommendation that they be deleted and redirected to the Sword of Truth series page, with all non-summary information moved to the other page, and perhaps a SHORT summary of what the series is about. Having just checked, however, I now note that there IS no main page for the Sword of Truth series, neccessitating its creation. I, being currently busy, will make such a page for it tomorrow.MPoint
      - Actually, you're wrong, there is The Sword of Truth which does cover the series as a whole. The fact is, your problem is not a deletion issue, it's a clean-up problem. If you don't feel the individual books in the series would need a page of their own, try the {{merge}} tag. Go to the Sword of Truth Wikiproject. Convince people of what you feel is appropriate. Deletion, however, is not the proper route to go here. Not as a first step. As it stands, I just see this as the wrong approach. FrozenPurpleCube 07:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, I had missed it, as it is not linked from the Sword of Truth project page, or the individual book pages. I would support a merger if there was something to be merged, but as it stands, there isn't. All that is in the book pages that is not in the main page is a plot summary and list of characters, which is the problem - there is nothing usable or encyclopedic in the pages. We don't have any sense of why they're important, or what impact they're having on the world at large - no information as to how well it sold, or who recognizes it as important, no examination into its hidden meanings or who looks to it for inspiration. A lot of work went into these articles, and it's a shame to see it wasted, but the fact stands that it's not proper Wikipedia material, and would be better placed on a fansite. The main article, now that I have read it, says everything that needs to be said. MPoint
        Actually, the plot summaries and lists of characters are quite encyclopedic and are valid content for a merger. You seem to have this idea that plot summaries absolutely cannot be on Wikipedia. That is not true(and if it were, it'd mean thousands of pages would have to be pruned). the problem is when plot summaries are the only thing in an article. Well, given that these are books, the plots and characters will have to be covered, so the question is detail and context. Can more be added to add real world perspective? Maybe, maybe not, though given that these are best-sellers, I would not take your word on faith about that. But again, as I see it, in this case, your problems are more properly clean-up issues, not deletion ones. There are many templates that can be used to mark an article for clean-up or improvement so that interested parties can act. You should have tried that method, not AfD. FrozenPurpleCube 08:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Show me how the plot summaries from each book can be merged into the main series article without losing important detail or bloating it beyond reason, and I will agree merge is the right option. At the moment, I believe that the best option would be to write a completely new (and short) summary for the entire series, as it would be significantly easier to write something like that from scratch. Character lists? Perhaps. The best option for that might be a new list, indicating which characters were in which books, on a single page, as opposed to broken up the way it is now. As stated below, putting up a cleanup tag and talk page notice would have been better form, I agree (which, to avoid putting up a dozen articles on AfD in one night, I have done with other books suffering this problem) - but here we are now, and if nothing else, we'll probably see distinct improvement over the next five days if such is possible. I hope that I'm proven wrong, and the article improves, as I dislike removing any article from Wikipedia; but, if it does not improve, then its removal will be in the best interests of the series.MPoint
    - (reducing indent) To be honest, I don't believe that an appropriate level of description from each book would fit into a single article on the series, so if you did propose a merge, I wouldn't support it. Individual articles in this case are my preference, and I'd rather expand the articles with more content. But at least a merge would have some plausibility to it. If that did happen, then yes, the current articles would need to be pruned. However, given that this content does exist, that it is valid and accurate, I would prefer to keep it as a baseline rather than start over from scratch. There is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater here. The fact is, removal of otherwise valid information is not in the best interest of anybody. It'd be one thing if this was poorly written, or absolute nonsense. But it's not. It's just some articles on books that are best-sellers, and so do deserve some mention on Wikipedia. So why delete? I can't imagine why. Improvement is the better choice here. FrozenPurpleCube 18:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - To be honest, I see no baby here to be discarded. There is one section, success, in the first book which can be added to the main article, or (if the rest of the article were shrunk to near-stub level) could be kept, but the rest of the articles have nothing to use outside of their own (policy-violating) articles. To summarize the series is best done from scratch, because individual book summaries have a level of detail that cannot be used in a series summary, leaving them completely separate. Character lists, if they choose to make such a list, may be a valid argument for merging that particular information from the articles, but such a suggestion had not been made prior to this AfD. The books deserve mention, yes. They deserve a redirect to the main Sword of Truth page, where they can be mentioned as a list, and can be of use as reference for a discussion of how the series arcs in its philosophy and development.MPoint
        I don't agree that it's best to start from scratch, the current quality of the articles is not so poor as to make that mandatory or desirable. They are at least some kind of foundation to build upon. I simply feel that's a better way to do things. FrozenPurpleCube 00:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - (reducing indent again)I'm not saying that the quality of the summaries are poor, merely that as they were written to summarize a book, their focus is inherently unsuable for a summary of a series. It's best to look at what the major events of a book are in relation to the series as a whole are when writing a series summary, and it is more difficult to do so when you trying to figure that out from the summary of a book written with an inherent focus on an individual book. That said, it can be done either way, and discussing which method is superior is really a matter of taste. I guess agreeing to disagree would probably be best on that point :) .MPoint
  - No, I wouldn't say their focus is unusable. Perhaps not completely what is desired, but they're still of some utility. It'd take something of far worse quality for me to agree it was unusable. Besides, I'd prefer the individual books have a page anyway, so it's a non-issue for me. Tag them for clean-up and move on. (And yes, you can withdraw your nomination at this point, nobody else has supported deletion anyway. ). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FrozenPurpleCube (talk • contribs) 01:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:BK. It does need some context added to make it more than a plot summary, but easily passes notability guidelines. Resolute 05:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For the fourth time, notability is not an issue here; it is easily a notable series. However, these pages violate WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Specifically, it violates section seven - "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." If the articles were to focus primarily on something that wasn't a summary, there would be no problem. However, as it stands, policy dicates that it is not Wikipedia material, and should be deleted. If we reduce the size of the summaries to within wikipedia policy, then the pages become unjustifiably small, and should be merged into the series page or the author's page as appropriate. Hence, the deletion.MPoint
  - Actually, policy dictates improvement. As a general rule, if the topic of an article is notable, the article shouldn't be deleted if the content is not hopelessly unsalvageable (which is the case here). I agree that the articles should be expanded, but that's a matter for {{expand}} or other {{cleanup}} templates. If you think the articles should be merged into a series page, then you may go ahead and do so, but deletion is still not warranted. How are you going to merge them after they're deleted? -- Black Falcon 08:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I do believe it to be unsalvagable, however, as there lacks sufficient information to include per book that will be substantially different from the main series page. It will therefore be either redundant or in permanent violation of section seven, meaning that it fails the policy guidelines, and can thus be deleted under the same grounds as any other WP:NOT violation. MPoint
      - I happen to disagree, but that is just my opinion. If you do think they are unsalvageable, then your nomination certainly becomes valid. However (assuming they are unsalvageable), would you support a merge into a "Sword of Truth" series (proposed on the articles or to the articles' primary authors)? I can understand and perhaps even be convinced by arguments that separate articles shouldn't exist, but I don't think the content should just be deleted, when it can be cut down and moved to a more appropriate place. Cheers, Black Falcon 08:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I really wish that merging was an option for more of the articles, but I don't think that it is. Taking a look at the articles again, the Success section of Wizard's First Rule could and should probably be merged into the Sword of Truth main article, but the other articles don't even list the release dates of the books, and the two articles that give a brief discussion of the philosophy in their respective books do so without citing any sources, leaving them unusable. It is my sincere hope that the articles make a dramatic improvement over the next five days, demonstrating my nomination to have been a horrible mistake, but the articles as they stand now are almost useless, and the series as a whole would be better served by removing the individual book articles. A new summary of the Sword of Truth series would be needed for the main article, however, as a reasonably short summary for the series cannot be made from the summaries for the books. I can be convinced that the articles aren't unsalvagable, mind you - it's entirely possible that there is some dimension of expansion that I hadn't previously considered, and I may have been too judgemental because of the excessive size of the current summaries. MPoint
Keep per all the comments above. The book is notable, and there is too much information for it to be merged. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 06:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then Delete the summaries. Wikipedia is not the place for plot summaries.MPoint
  - You are mistaken. Summaries of plots is highly appropriate for articles on books, television shows, and other fictional content. Not including them would be very strange. Or do you think Romeo and Juilet should have its section on the play's plot removed? I don't. I think you should adjust your approach to these articles. The problem is not that they contain plot summaries, it's the size of the summary and the lack of other content that is a problem. Again, that's clean-up, not deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 06:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem is not the size of the summary and lack of other content; those are symptoms. The problem is the lack of potential for each of these for every book. One page for all of the books would be very reasonable, and I would have no problem with it. As it stands, however, they lack the potential to reasonably fill the space that individual book pages offer them. A summary as a tool to help one understand the series and how it has impacted the world is encyclopedic and necessary. To have the summary be the focus is unencyclopedic, and detracts from the usefulness of the section as a whole.MPoint
      - I don't see any need for the books to "fill the space that individual book pages offer them" as not every article needs to be full of in-depth content. But given that they are best-sellers, I'd say it's at least as possible with them as it is with any other book with its own article. If these articles don't contain that content, that's the article's problem, not the subject's. In any case, your problem is best expressed as a clean-up issue not a deletion one. If you don't feel there is a need for individual articles, try proposing a merger. FrozenPurpleCube 07:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps I was a bit hasty in my nomination, as it is bad form to not give a warning first, but I consdier it a valid one. As for it being possible for them to fill their content, I don't believe it is, at least not without a good deal of overlap with the other book pages - from a strictly organizational perspective, I believe it would be better to keep all of the information on the series on one page. The main Sword of Truth page seems to be exactly what I had in mind, and what I believe to be near the limit of what could be reasonably written on the subject.MPoint
      - BTW, what do you think of The Fellowship of the Ring or even Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone? Not much different from these pages. FrozenPurpleCube 07:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, thank you. I'll tag them for cleanup now, and nominate for deletion if no talk or action is generated from the tag/talk page. The Harry Potter page is borderline, however; the introduction, missing text section, and displays of different covers comes very close to pushing it out of "mainly a plot summary". Perhaps the Fellowship of the Ring page is different from my cursory scan of it (I'll check before I tag it), but it appears to be mainly a summary at the moment. MPoint
Keep When articles for clearly notable subjects aren't very good, the solution may be to fix them instead of deleting them. Maxamegalon2000 06:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BK. If the topic is notable (which even the nom has admitted is the case), the article should not be deleted unless hopelessly unsalvageable. That is hardly the case with these articles. They can and should be improved. -- Black Falcon 07:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though I see MPoint's point, my gut fails to agree and application of his criteria would require the deletion of virtually every novel on wikipedia that's not a literary masterpiece with multiple reviews and academic analysis. Articles should be expanded with whatever information can be added (sales, best-seller status at minimum, these particular articles could probably be expanded with Goodkind's opinions on what the themes of the novels are (but only the themes, not their impact on literature, the world or people). I agree with Black Falcon, FrozenPurpleCube and the other keep votes. Fix, add content, don't delete. Given Goodkind's agenda of adding significant philosophical content to the fantasy world and books in general, linking plot points with his overall writing goals should be possible, though sourcing may be problematic.

Also note discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/GeneralForum#.22PROD.22. I think in this case, the point

"should" is the magic word in the passage quoted from "What Wikipedia is not". "should" refers to something desirable rather than to a prerequisite. "should" is not synonymous 
with "must". I agree that an article on a novel should contain more than a plot summary. If it doesn't, it should be expanded rather than shortened, let alone deleted

applies in the case of all the novels. As a final note, I think brief plot summaries are appropriate to pages about books (I've also found them useful in the past), so it might be a question of what else, or how much needs to be added to dodge the WP:NOT criteria. I've brought this up at Village Pump and I'm waiting for a reply. WLU 12:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The PROD discussion that you linked to would seem to support my conclusions - the only person who argued against it was the creator of the article, with everyone else saying more or less "Well, you say you'll improve it, and I don't really feel like taking it to AfD myself". That would therefore indicate that this is a valid nomination, if perhaps overly harsh. That said, if you can tell me what else you plan on adding in the next month, and how you are going to change the article sizes to emphasize the new material while minimizing the summaries, and how the new structure could not be handled more effectively through use of the main Sword of Truth page and Author page, then I will happily reverse my position in this AfD as having been premature.MPoint
Keep. WP:NOT includes "plot summaries" for the such when given their own article. WP:BK and notability guidlines both provide for these listed articles. The notability of this article can be verified through reliable sources. Or attibuted. I suspect that this nomination is either in bad faith or in violation of WP:POINT. NeoFreak 13:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your reading of policy and guideline is fallacious. As specifically said in the introductory paragraph of WP:BK

A number of other relevant policies which all articles must comport with are: verifiability; no original research; Wikipedia is not a soapbox; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.[2] Where articles fail to encompass these policy considerations and others, they may be proposed for deletion or may be more formally listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

Relevant portion bolded. WP:BK does not override policy, namely WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven. This is a plot summary, in most of the cases nothing more than a summary. It therefore violates policy. I am highly insulted that you would accuse me of bad faith for following policy - as for WP:POINT, I am beginning to be irked that WP:NOT is being so widely ignored, and have started to do something about it. Are you saying that paying particular attention to certain portions of policy is WP:POINT?MPoint

Keep, excessive plot summary is a reason to trim and summarize detail, rather than delete the whole article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above. AFD is a last resort, not a casual weapon. — Deckill er 13:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Each book stands on it's own as an individual piece in the series. Each has it's own theme, plot and storyline. Though the series is written in sequence, each book has enough complete background in them and character development as a standalone piece. Deleting is not the solution, but perhaps enhancement. Joedu 17:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not certain how your suggestion is in line with policy. Adding more character development, plot, and storyline would all fall under the descriptor of plot summary, and so still be a violation of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven. What is needed is more information about how this book relates to the outside world, and how the outside world relates to it. I am not convinced that each book individually has had enough of an impact to justify individual pages. If you can do so, please state how, and we can all end this affair.MPoint
  - You miss my point. Because of each individual novel's completeness as a standalone novel, which includes an impactful philosphical theme (which precisely related to the outside world and vice-versa) and storyline, each deserves it's own page. I did not say that each should only include things that would make it a violation. My suggestion is that each page be enhanced to satisfy the rules.Joedu 22:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, so you meant the philosophical impact of the books. Well, exactly one of those pages (and the one that was most obviously trying to make a point, at that) has an unsourced description of the philosophy of the book, and has been looking for a reliable source for five months. If a significant section on the themes and philosophy of each book can be written for each book, without any reliance on the other books of the series, and based on reliable sources, then I will agree that the individual book pages can stay, though the summaries would probably need to be shortened. As it stands, however, I suspect that it would be easier, shorter, and more organized to discuss the philisophical themes of the series as a whole, with references to which books stress which themes the most. For a hastily written example "The series is heavily influenced by the objectivist theories of Ayn Rand; this can be most clearly seen in Faith of the Fallen, where Richard is confronted by the horror of the Imperial Order's communist society". MPoint
      - Your suspicions on ease of use do not warrant AfD. The goal to make each novel's page more complete and relevant. Again, akin to all the other books in all the other series written by all the other authors each having their own page.Joedu 17:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Was there ever any doubt? We have (in the not to distant past) started a Sword of Truth Wiki project [3] where we are working on bettering these pages. Thing to remember is that we (well 99.999% of us) have real lives that take up our time; so adding to the project is always a slow process. Now these pages clearly fall into the defined parameters of Wikipedia WP:BK etc. As it would seem, you are already sweeping through and tagging several pages. I think you will find you are mistaken as to your interpretation of policy and guidelines. Also of not is that Goodkind would love for these pages to be removed, but seeing as Goodkind has no say so as to what is placed or not, his opinion matter little.

What we need to remind ourselves is that simply because someone doesn't care for a thing, in no way validated the need for removal. According to MPoint's rational, then almost every Novel page would also need to be included, namely ASOIAF pages, Wheel of time, by Robert Jordan, etc. All of them would be considered AFD. I hope that simply put MPage is misguided in his/her desire to help Wikipedia a better

Place, rather than some kind of bad faith effort or some retaliatory strike. I for one would like to think the former Mystar 18:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Ah, thank you for bringing those pages to my attention. I will have them tagged for cleanup at once. That said, I have seen little on the articles' talk pages about how to bring the pages in line with WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven, and less in the way of development for most pages. Is there something in the project page that relates to finding and adding more information that would bring compliance with section seven, and could not be better handled through additions to the main page or author's page? If so, please show me, as I would prefer to believe that I simply missed something.MPoint
Strong Keep. I think MPoint may be confusing the need to delete with the need to expand. Could all the above articles be improved with historical significance, critical commentary, and third-party analysis? Of course (assuming it could be done in a neutral, NPOV tone citing credible, notable references). But to even consider deleting these pages? That is completely ludicrous. All the novels in the series (apart from the first two) have been New York Times Bestsellers, with the series as a whole having sold tens of millions of copies worldwide. Runch
- I do not believe that they can be improved on an individual basis in a way that would not invite redundancy, or be better organized by a section on the article's main page or the author's page. It is my belief that the focus of the articles will always be on the summary, which is a violation of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven. Millions of books sold (a more precise number added to all of the book pages would have been helpful in preventing this, by the way, as well as how long they were on the bestseller's list) is not an excuse to ignore policyMPoint
In addition to the fact that these articles obviously pass Notability guidelines, I'd like to make a reference to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate. All the articles listed follow the WP:NOVELS guidelines, and they are clearly not "just plot summaries". All the articles also include a full infobox with publication information, character listings, etc. To be honest, I would go so far as to suggest that all these nominations should be a Speedy Keep. Runch
- Following WP:NOVELS guidelines while ignoring policy is still grounds for deletion. Guidelines are suggestions (as they themselves state at the top); policy is mandatory. And they are mostly summary, falling afoul of the last half of section seven; "A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.". They currently are not, as the summaries ARE the topic of the article. Say I'm being too harsh or too legalistic perhaps, but these are valid grounds.MPoint
As a final point, I'll argue that it would be completely silly to try and fit all the information covered on the novel article pages on the page for The Sword of Truth. That would make that page enormous, bulky, and unwieldy, which is precisely why each novel has it's own article. Sorry if I'm rambling, but I just can't believe the audacity of these nominations... Runch 19:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, if you were to replace individual book summaries with a GENERAL series summary, it would be short and perfectly acceptable. There are no need for individual book summaries if you don't have the information to support them.MPoint
Comment Nomination should probably be withdrawn as per WP:SNOW--155.144.251.120 20:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Invalid rationale for AFD. If there's too much plot summary, then that's an issue to be handled within the article, not by deleting. 23skidoo 21:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The subject matter of this article is a valid matter for coverage under wikipedia. Yes, there is work to be done, no that does not validate even considering AFD. Disdain for an author or his works is not grounds for deletion of an article about the author or his works. Omnilord 21:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand me. Yes, I do dislike the series, but I recognize that it is a notable work and a valid subject for wikipedia; what I do not agree with is the existance of individual book pages that contain nothing but a plot summary. If every individual book has enough information to be compliant with WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven, then add it; if not, remove the book pages, and add a brief series plot summary to the main article. We must be policy compliant.MPoint
  - In that case, the following novels by renowned novelists should also be listed for AfD as an example to other editors: The Eye of the World, The Great Hunt,The Dragon Reborn, The Shadow Rising, The Fires of Heaven, Lord of Chaos, A Crown of Swords, The Path of Daggers, Winter's Heart, Crossroads of Twilight, Knife of Dreams, A Memory of Light, A Game of Thrones, A Clash of Kings, A Storm of Swords, A Feast for Crows, A Dance with Dragons, The Winds of Winter, A Dream of Spring, Gardens of the Moon, Deadhouse Gates, Memories of Ice, House of Chains, Midnight Tides, The Bonehunters, Reaper's Gale. I am quite positive there are several hundred other novels and books that meet AfD requirements for WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven that need to be listed. I would do this myself, however, I lack the time as I have a job that ties me up during the day and more enjoyable things to do with my life (what precious little free time I do have) than pick fights on an open-edit encyclopedia. Not to mention I have no idea how to AfD an article. Omnilord 22:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - As a matter of fact, I'm currently in the process of putting cleanup tags on most of those articles; if you check, you'll find that I've already finished tagging all of the Wheel of time novels, as well as couple of the Song of Ice and Fire articles; some of them, however, are borderline, and so were left with a message on their talk page. A Dance with Dragons is fine at the moment. Thank you for the other suggestions of what to tag, though! If these aren't fixed within a reasonable period of time, then yes, they will also be nominated for deletion. And I am also convinced that there are several hundred other novels and books that are currently in violation of section seven, hence why I'm going about doing this. I have no interest in picking fights, however, as you insinuate, I only have an interest in maintaining the policies of Wikipedia. Something needed to be AfD'd, and this series happened to be the first non-borderline case I stumbled upon. Was it hasty to not tag it for cleanup first? Yes, as I have previously stated. What can I say, I was in a bad mood, and it happens. But now that it is here, I stand by my decision; it was in poor form, but it was justified under the polices.MPoint
      - For the record, you're using the wrong tag. These articles really don't need cleanup (which implies that grammar, formatting, order, etc. needs to be fixed). If anything, use a more specific tag, such as the Expand tag. - Runch 23:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Having a quick look at the Malazan pages, and the SoT pages for that matter, there's lots of content that's not just plot summary. The info boxes for one, contain an enormous amount of relevant real-world information. Accordingly, by that measure alone none of these should be AFD. Also, editors deciding to spend their time working on other articles is not a reason to nominate it for deletion. The time taken to put up all the tags could have probably been used to move at least one of them to the point where it did not need it. All of us have limited time, and this AFD is not a good use of it. Since there is no chance that any of these pages are going to be deleted, I'm not spending any more time on this one. WLU 00:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        As the focus of the articles are the summary, the infoboxes are insufficient to address WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven. As for the accusation that I'm wasting my time by tagging, they took approximately one minute a piece to tag after I read the articles, and felt that I should not add any new information before consulting with the people who had been working on the article previously. At no point did I suggest that editors working on other articles as opposed to these ones were a reason for deletion, and I resent the implication that I stated so. That said, if it were taking longer then five minutes a piece to write these while I wait for responses from other people at work, I would probably not be spending time on this AfD either, for simple fact that I suspect we're just restating our arguments at this point.MPoint
        
        Yes and no; the cleanup tag is specifically supposed to be a generic tag to catch anything the more specific tags lack. Tags covering what you believe cleanup implies would be the copyedit, spelling, and restructuring tags. More specific tags for my particular complaint might be unencyclopedic (though I felt that would have been perceived as too hostile), the cleanup-book tag, one of the context tags, or one of the expansion tags. However, the expansion tag or context tags would have been too specific; removal of summary or addition of new material both could deal with the issue, and both exclude the other. that said, I had thought that I was using the cleanup-book tag, and I'm quite uncertain as to how I missed the fact that I wasn't for a good ten articles or so.MPoint
Keep ill-conceived misuse of AfD. Cleanup does not require deletion. It just requires using the edit button. This AfD is a clear candidate for being speedy-closed under WP:SNOW. Jerry lavoie 00:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All. Tag with {in-universe} or something. And speedy close per WP:SNOW. AndyJones 13:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Article(s) needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. If articles were merged, the article it was merged to would be overrun and far too long. --pIrish 22:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.